Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb



''Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.''

Cause of concern
There appears to be a pattern of long-term incivility, personal attacks, and edit-warring by User:Joefromrandb. Multiple editors have asked him to tone it done, and they have been met with recalcitrance, and sometimes even with personal attacks or accusations of trolling or being a kid. Joe's behavior suggests competence issues. p b  p  20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Past infractions

 * AN/I report from July 2012
 * AN/I report from October 2012; blocked for edit warring
 * AN/I report from August 2013

Edit warring

 * User talk:GabeMc, 15 August
 * Roger Waters, 15 August
 * Roger Waters, 11 August
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music, 11 August (and edit warring to levy a personal attack
 * Hurricane Electric, 3 August
 * Józef Kowalski, 3 July
 * Kermit Gosnell, 15 May

Incivility and personal attacks

 * Here Joe uses the words: retard**, as**ole and ba**s in the same edit.
 * Here Joe seems to state that use of the f-word is gratutious profanity
 * Again, Joe seems to think that using the f-word is vulgar: "per my talk page query; I don't know of any circumstance under which "fuck" is not considered vulgar"
 * Responding to the revocation of his rollbacker rights due to edit warring: edit: "go f*** yourself"; edit summary: "f*** off dipsh**"
 * Calling an admin a "motherfu****".
 * Calling an admin a "motherf*****" and stating: "I will not rest until you are desysoped".
 * Calling and admin "incredibly fuc**** stupid".
 * Calling an admin a "fu***** disgrace" and assuming bad-faith about said admin's actions; i.e. accusing them of being ego driven.
 * Stating that an admin has a "shi*** attitude" and "admins are so fu***** arrogant".
 * Here Joe tells an admin: "mind your own fucking business"
 * Chastises an admin for saying "grow the fu** up"
 * Tells another user to "grow the fu** up"
 * Calling an editor: "a fuc**** disgrace of the lowest order".
 * Calling PbP "assholish".
 * Here Joe calls User:Bbb23 "simply disgusting"
 * A personal attack that disparages the editor without commenting on the content of the dispute
 * Personal attack. Joe accuses someone of lying and drops an f-bomb.
 * Profanity
 * Accusations of admin abuse.
 * An intentionally cruel and demeaning response intended to shame an editor.
 * Canvassing/conspiring to cause disruption
 * Personal attack in edit summary
 * Intentional restoration of a spelling mistake, which I assume is considered vandalism.
 * Personal attack w/profanity
 * Referring to an admin as a "little boy" in edit and "silly children" in edit summary
 * Personal attack w/profanity
 * Profanity in edit summary
 * Profanity in edit summary
 * Profanity, blasphemy and rude battleground approach
 * Profanity in edit summary
 * Incivility in edit and profanity in edit summary
 * Profanity in edit summary
 * Incivility and profanity in edit and edit summary
 * Profanity in edit summary
 * Mocking an editor who was attempting to resolve a dispute with him by implying he is a "shi*head"
 * Condescending incivility.


 * Battleground mentality
 * "This is a grudge that I will likely carry forever"
 * Reversing his position for spite
 * "My opponent just goaded one of Wikipedia's finest editors into a site-ban."
 * With User:Kww: "load of sh**", "The only "trouble" here is you and your ilk".
 * Battleground mentality in edit summary
 * threatening a revenge FAR
 * Misusing the term vandalism.
 * tendentious editing
 * aggressive edit summary


 * Accusations of trolling (often misplaced)
 * Accusing editor asking him to stop attacks of being a troll
 * Accusing an editor who is warning him about edit warring of trolling.
 * Responding to a warning about WP:NLT, Joe responds: "Go troll somewhere else kid".
 * Accusing an editor of trolling.
 * Around 15 examples of Joe accusing people of trolling.

Possible legal threat

 * here

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NOTBATTLE
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:NLT

Desired outcome
''This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.''

We would like Joefromrandb to:


 * 1) Acknowledge that users have concerns about his conduct, and not attack them for having them
 * 2) Curtail his use of profanity and personal attacks
 * 3) Refrain from edit-warring, possibly by agreeing to voluntary restrictions such as 1RR or 2RR

By User:Purplebackpack89

 * Asks Joe to stop personally attacking others, Joe accuses him of trolling and being a kid
 * when PBP points out that that is also a personal attack, to say nothing of being inaccurate, Joe accuses him of trolling and being a kid
 * when PBP explained what trolling is and why asking editors to stop personal attacks isn’t trolling, Joe accuses him of trolling and being a kid
 * 7 August

By User:GabeMc

 * 13 August
 * 11 August

By others

 * Chastisement for incivility at WP:VA/E
 * Canadian Paul
 * Federales

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
 * 1)  p  b  p  20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Other users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because the certifiers and the subject are hostile to each other doesn't negate the fact that Joefromrandb is a hostile editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) LedRush (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) I can't envision "retarded" as an insult ever being acceptable, and certainly not when followed up with "asshole". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Incivility is a cancer to a volunteer organization like WP. It should not be tolerated.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Aoidh (formerly SudoGhost)
If this RfC/U had come from anyone except Purplebackpack89 or GabeMc it might have had more merit to it, but this entire RfC/U is a case of WP:KETTLE. See the talk page for clarification on this, since editors are misreading what I've written. I took a look at this report starting with the diffs for edit-warring. Both pbp and GabeMc have filed multiple reports at WP:AN3 in the past few days, here, here, and here. Not only are GabeMc and pbp guilty of the same kind of edit-warring they're accusing Joefromrandb of, but the administrators commenting on those reports disagreed with pbp and GabeMc's assessment to the point that pbp has been advised by multiple administrators at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 to find something else to do that doesn't involve filing frivolous reports against Joefromrandb, and yet they've included those diffs here as "evidence", but omitted the actual AN3 reports as those would have discredited their accusations somewhat.

In the next section the two editors accuse Joefromrandb of calling other editors trolls, yet GabeMc has called Joefromrandb the exact same thing multiple times just within the past few days alone. The diff in which pbp claims he "asks Joe" to stop with personal attacks is rather misleasding; it wasn't a request, it was not one, but two simultaneous templates, Template:uw-wrongsummary and Template:uw-npa4, followed by a "don't you dare" comment, all within the same edit. I can't imagine many editors would respond to that in a positive way, especially when it's followed by the same exact template prefaced with "here's another user warning for your trouble". That isn't someone "asking Joe to stop", but it does look like an attempt to escalate a situation specifically to use any response to pad an RfC/U.

The three points listed here are not unreasonable, but the problem is that those are things that apply to GabeMc and pbp as well. - SudoGhost 02:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) SudoGhost 02:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --  tariq abjotu  04:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Cardamon (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by Tariqabjotu
I have no doubt that Joefromrandb doesn't qualify as a model editor (case in point, this discussion). However, I share SudoGhost's concerns that this RfC is largely discredited by the actions of the two editors who initiated it. Sudo didn't mention the latest AN3 report against Joe, which I rejected on similar grounds that previous AN3 reports were rejected -- the filer (in this case, Gabe) does not come with clean hands. (I was then rebuffed, effectively told that because Joe is wrong, his edit-warring was reprehensible, but not Gabe's.)

Much of the evidence comes across as cardstacking, without any context and consideration for what was going on. This is not evidence of disruption, and he only reverted this material twice. Same goes for this. This and this are edit wars that include one of the filing editors. I find it odd that this is used as an example of edit-warring; in actuality, it demonstrates Gabe's propensity to find anything to pin to Joe. There's no evidence the diff Joe is removing can be attributed to him; in fact, it's almost certain it's not him since he has an unblocked account (and thus has no reason to resort to evasion) and since that IP is based in the UK, while Joe's userpage suggests quite strongly that he's in the US. Most of the evidence of incivility (while not, of course, excusable) came as a result of the two filing editors' blatant taunting. Both filing editors have been prominently collecting links to Joe's supposed transgressions (here and here) as if they're preparing for battle. They've also been trying to recruit editors for their push against Joe. Despite Purple being told to leave Joe alone, he and Gabe have somehow managed to forge a partnership over the past few days aimed at entrapping Joe. In this thread, which seems reminiscent of the cool kids gossiping about the new kid as he sits alone at the lunch table ten feet away, we see GabeMc say "I'll continue to collect diffs and I encourage you to do the same" and Purple say "What we're hoping for is, either at the RFC/U or not, he makes a big fool of himself in front of a whole bunch of people." Joe's annoyed response was to be expected, and, of course, that's what they wanted, so they can have more ammo for their next move (this RfC) against him.

The evidence of "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" is, to put it simply, laughable. Bombarding Joe's talk page with spurious warnings based on KETTLE behavior or behavior resulting from overt baiting is not "trying" to resolve the dispute. No, it's riling him up, knowing he'll respond in a mildly inappropriate manner. A surefire way, I'm sure, to resolve the dispute here is to stop engaging with Joe (as they have been told to do a number of times). Joe is not, despite the suggestion to the contrary, going out of his way to harass either of the filing editors. The proof comes in that ten of the last twelve threads at User talk:Joefromrandb are started by one of the two filing editors, rife with strident accusations of misconduct without any consideration for the filing editors' culpability. Gabe has said he apologized for calling Joe a "troll", but I doubt anyone would say "I apologized for the troll comment, but I stand by that its how I feel right now." meets basic standards of contrition.

Honestly, I fail to see here or in the various threads on my talk page, other admins' talk pages (User talk:Bishonen, User talk:Black Kite, User talk:Laser brain, User talk:Mark Arsten), at ANI, at AN3, etc. (wherever they forum-shopped), why exactly I should feel any sympathy for the two editors who opened this request. They were looking for trouble and they found it. --  tariq abjotu  07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) See talk page for further elaboration. --  tariq abjotu  07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SudoGhost 08:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Cardamon (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Endorse, bull's eye. I see PBP and Gabe poking and pestering Joe until they find the trouble they're looking for. And above, I see PBP hilariously offering this very pestering as "trying and failing to resolve disputes", when it's in reality calculated to inflame disputes. Do take a look at tariqabjotu's detailed diff-by-diff deconstruction of this card-house case on the talk page, too. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC).
 * 99.251.120.60 (talk) Gabe has caused too many accounts and IPs to quit editing or indeffed in the past over content disputes. This disruption is just more of the same. This behavior has to stop being supported by admins. Joe has not exhibited perfect behavior either and needs to be toned down.  Most of the examples on this page are subject to interpretation and grossly exaggerated to beat another "combatant" [| This] sees to be Gabe's admission that this RfC is just his usual tactics to squash another content disputant. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) FTR, this IP is the Rogers Cable troll from last year's Beatles mediation who is on record calling people "fa**", "je**" and "nig****". She was also blocked for a year for harassment. For more detail, please see here: User:99.251.125.65.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)  User has been blocked for 1 month for disruption and suspected sockpuppetry  p  b  p  22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse Bishonen linked to it above, but this evidence to the talk page from Tariq is eye-opening. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) With thanks to Tariqabjotu for doing so much legwork. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support especially the last statement.  Minima  ©  ( talk ) 08:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by TParis

 * Joefromrandb shows a history of behavior that is disruptive and well into the personal attack realm. Users who have dealt with him have often shrugged it off allowing his own attitudes speak for themselves.  I apparently first ran into Joefromrandb when I approved his rollback rights and shortly thereafter he was blocked by me for edit warring with an IP address.  Joeframrandb had gotten into an arguement with the IP address over the morality of taking advantage of a voluntary suspension of a paywall on a particularly useful site.  The argument turned into personal attacks between Joefromrandb and the IP for which Sven Manguard removed the whole section.  When the IP tried to readd only the portion about the paywall, Joefromrandb edit warred citing the vandalism clause in WP:EW as an exemption.  As the IP wasn't trying to vandalism anything, was making a good faith attempt to alert others of an opportunity, and was not restoring the personal attacks, Joe was asked to stop and then blocked.  What followed from Joe was a series of insults calling others children and little boys (the diffs are already presented by the two certifiers).  Joe's habit of stretching rules beyond reasonable levels and then attacking administrators who don't buy into his misunderstanding of policy is a great example of WP:IDHT behavior.
 * In opposition to SudoGhost's comment, WP:KETTLE does not invalidate that an issue exists. That's really a distraction to the actual point. PBP and GabeMC may have their own problems, but those do not excuse or justify Joefromrandb's own behaviors which are far more widespread, as has been demonstrated, than with these two other users. If Joefromrandb wishes to compile an RFC/U on the certifiers, or show some kind of evidence that he was baited (and I know for a fact that the particular case where I blocked him involved no baiting, so he can't explain away everything) then the discussion should go on.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --v/r - TP 19:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) . Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally don't feel SudoGhost was saying the KETTLE behavior invalidates the fact that an issue exists, so I don't feel endorsing this conflicts with my endorsement of SudoGhost's summary. --  tariq abjotu  19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Actually they are saying that. They said the filing would have more merit if it came from others and not these two. So, while not explicit, it is implicit.--  Mark  20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I endorse the first paragraph, but I'm not saying that WP:KETTLE invalidates any issue in any way. - SudoGhost
 * 4) The issue here is Joefromrandbs behavior which is appalling. If others have issues with GabeMc and Purblbackøs behaviors then that is a separate question, which can be treated here but which does in no way exonerate Joefromrandb.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Joefromrandb isn't an innocent victim here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Why are we wasting time with people like this who make Wikipedia a dark and depressing place to be.  I cannot speak for PBP as I haven't come accross him before (I'm sure he is very nice and a great editor), but I do know Gabe and consider him one of the best editors on WP. These guys shouldnt put up with this level of abuse. Joefromrandbs attitude is disgusting and he should be blocked forthwith.   Cassianto Talk   22:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because the certifiers and the subject are hostile to each other doesn't change the fact that Joefromrandb has a history of being hostile.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree with the above. Rothorpe (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree. That this is not a great RfC doesn't mean that at least some of the behavior pointed to in various diffs isn't problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) A lot of hostility here, and (most, but) not necessarily all of it from Joe alone, but there is definitely a pattern. There are ways of resolving disputes that don't involve deliberately antagonizing people and holding grudges for the hell of it. Even though it's a problem I've not had a lot of direct experience with, the evidence is hard to ignore. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Agreed.  We are here, so let's let some good come of this.LedRush (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) The differences provided barely scratch the surface of Joefromrandb's condescending and aggressive tone. There is indeed a long-term pattern here, and it needs to be addressed. Kurtis (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) The 'pedia will be a better place without Joe in my experience, and the emphatic confirmation of other users convinces me that a long block or even a community ban will prevent further abuse. Jus  da  fax   03:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) I agree that there is problematic editing. If it's felt that other people are doing bad stuff too, then start another RfC or whatever; but that doesn't mean we have to continue putting up with problematic editing from Joefromrandb. bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside View by Robert McClenon
First, Joefromrandb is clearly a disruptive editor who has a history of personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries. He really needs to clean up his behavior if he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to quarrel. He has engaged in too many idle accusations of trolling. Second, however, I don't see that there were the efforts to try to reason with the unreasonable editor that are, at least nominally, required for the certifiers of a user RFC. The efforts listed by the certifiers include one reasonable request, and numerous warnings and templates, not much of an improvement over the behavior of Joefromrandb.

Third, I have an alternate suggested result of this RFC/U. I suggest that an interaction ban between Joefromrandb and Purplebackpack89 be instituted, either by consensus or by the ArbCom. It is clear that these editors simply do not like each other, and should be told to leave each other alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary or outside view:
 * 1) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SudoGhost 02:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --  tariq abjotu  02:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)  Minima  ©  ( talk ) 08:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment
On reviewing the history of this User Conduct Request for Comments, I see evidence that is deeply unsettling that the certifiers have been removing some of the diffs and changing the evidence after the outside views have been entered, in one case with the stated intention of rendering an objection moot. Whether one thinks that user conduct RFCs are a useful part of dispute resolution or not (and I think that they normally are not useful), the changing of the allegations after the outside responses are in is improper. Even at best, that is, assuming good faith, it makes it more difficult for a later editor to understand what the outside comments are about. It is even less likely with after-the-fact editing that this RFC will result in any improvement than before after-the-fact editing. Can the certifiers please at least leave the evidence in its current state now, rather than forcing the commenters to shoot at a moving target? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will certify to that p  b  p  04:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:
 * 1) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I also agree that, while it might be okay to strike content, it's poor form to remove it once it's already been commented upon. --  tariq abjotu  03:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) As per Tariqabjotu.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree to not alter any content moving forward, but I resent the implication that this was in anyway misconduct or gaming the system. Chalk-up this minor procedural error to editor inexperience, not intentional malfeasance. Further, is there any reason why we couldn't end this apparently corrupted RFC/U and start another that includes only the strongest diffs and with the understanding that after the RFC/U goes live there is to be no alteration of the evidence?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Outside view from Lukeno94
Having watched the ANI threads and various forum-shopping from Purplebackback89, I feel that both editors can be problematic. Both have been highly uncivil at times, both have edited disruptively. There is very little evidence of any proper attempt to solve the dispute prior to this RFC/U (ANI doesn't count, nor do spamming warnings on to talk pages.) However, given the evidence here, it's clear that Joefromrandb is the more disruptive of the two. I do, however, echo the sentiment of SudoGhost that it would've been better for a more neutral person to file this. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --  tariq abjotu  02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5)  Minima  ©  ( talk ) 08:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary
(non-admin closure) I'm closing this following a request at AN/RFC, because a previous close due to inactivity omitted any summary of the discussion. Drmies's proposed summary was:
 * Joe's behavior and word choice is deemed deeply problematic, even offensive, by a considerable number of editors. His takeaway from this RfC should be that he should adjust his attitude if he wishes to work within a collaborative community and not get his ass blocked all the time. However, it is noted by a considerable number of respected editors (including yours truly, of course) that this particular RfC is a bit tainted from the get-go since it seems that the editors who started it have a history with Joe that suggests an important and less than productive interest in seeking out conflict with Joe. Another takeway from this RfC should be, therefore, that those editors should, you know, just stay away.

I've read through things and am of the opinion that the proposed summary is appropriate. To paraphrase and further expand: -- Trevj (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This RfC has had no conclusive outcomes.
 * 2) The basis for the dispute with the named editor was certified by 2 editors. Their summary was endorsed by 7 editors.
 * 3) Outside views were presented by 5 editors, and variously endorsed by multiple editors.
 * 4) None of the desired outcomes have been specifically agreed to.
 * 5) There was overwhelming endorsement for TParis's view that the certifiers' own adopted behaviours do not excuse or justify Joefromrandb's own behaviors which are far more widespread.
 * 6) The editor in question and one of the certifiers have since agreed to treat each other respectfully.
 * 7) The overriding consensus could be summarised by stating that everyone should remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus.